Ventura Accused of Delaying Seawater Plant : Council: The charge is levied by the head of last fall’s successful effort to persuade voters to back desalination.

Some members of the Ventura City Council have “a hidden agenda” to delay building a desalination plant until a new council can be elected and scuttle the project, the leader of the desalination campaign charged Monday.

Tim Downey, who last fall headed a successful campaign to build a desalination plant, said the Ventura City Council has been moving too slowly on the project for political reasons.

Four seats on the seven-member council are up for grabs this fall, and if a slate of council members are elected who favor building a pipeline to the State Water Project instead, the desalination plant could be killed, Downey said.

“I think there is a hidden agenda among some members of the council to drag this whole issue out as long as they can,” Downey said. “This council is waiting to see who ends up with those four seats in November.”

Council members denied the allegations, citing their decision Monday to allocate another $190,000--in addition to $200,000 already spent--on studies for what is expected to be one of the largest and costliest municipal seawater desalination plants outside the Middle East.

City officials estimate that the plant will cost between $33 million and $55 million to build.

Proponents of the desalination plant said they approved of the council’s action to continue funding the project, but faulted city leaders for dragging their feet.

“They’re not moving real fast,” said Steve Bennett, a Nordhoff High School teacher who helped Downey lead the campaign to construct the plant. “They should be obtaining proposals from contractors now. The voters want a desal plant.”

After a hard-fought November battle between state water and desalination interests, Ventura residents voted 55% to 45% in an advisory measure to build a desalination plant instead of importing water from Northern California.

The council has not given final approval for the project, but has allocated money for preliminary studies and planning.

In the nine months after the advisory vote, the council has hired a project manager, a public relations firm and a hydro-geology consulting company. One public workshop was held, a seminar was conducted and four newsletters have been distributed. Six test drills along the Ventura coastline have been completed, and consultants are preparing to drill two trial production wells.

Project Manager Glenn McPherson said he is satisfied with the project’s pace so far and denied that politics have slowed its progress.

“I don’t see any waffling from the council,” McPherson said. “We can all hope that things would move along extremely fast, but I think there is good progress being made.”

McPherson said environmental studies are scheduled to begin next year and the plant is expected to be ready in 1997.

Councilman James Monahan, who favors building a pipeline and is running for reelection, voted against funding more studies on the project.

“I don’t want to spend another nickel on it until the voters have a say,” Monahan said before Monday’s meeting. “They didn’t know what they were voting for, there was no funding attached for it. They got a pig in a poke.”

Monahan said he favors putting the issue on the ballot again.

Former Mayor Richard Francis said he was not surprised to hear charges of delay. “Water is a political issue. Every step is grudgingly taken, and when every step is grudging, it will go slowly.”

Francis noted that of the seven council members, only three--Todd Collart, Gary Tuttle and Cathy Bean--have publicly endorsed a desalination plant. The others have either taken stands against it, in favor of state water, or have refused to commit themselves.

“The political will to go for desal is less than overwhelming,” Francis said. “Because it rained, I think everyone thinks there’s time to study the issue. The council isn’t above spending a half-million in lip service.”

Councilman Tom Buford, a state water supporter, said city leaders have been on track with the project.

“We want to study the issue carefully,” Buford said. “That doesn’t mean we don’t respect the vote. We’re doing it right, and you don’t do it overnight.”

Mayor Gregory L. Carson agreed the results of the November election could influence the pace of the project, or even kill it altogether, but emphasized that the current council is not deliberately delaying the process because of the upcoming elections.

“I don’t think we could be moving any faster,” Carson said. “The people have the final say. They can ultimately control the council through the ballot initiative process. If they want, they can get a ballot measure to force the council to go toward desal.”